Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HILLARY: BEWARE OF VOTING MACHINES MADE OF STEAL
New York Post ^ | 3/11/04 | Vincent Morris

Posted on 03/10/2004 11:53:58 PM PST by kattracks

Edited on 05/26/2004 5:20:00 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

March 11, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Clinton said yesterday voters in New York and elsewhere may not be able to trust future election results, charging the company that makes high-tech voting machines may skew results to help Republicans win.


(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: electronicvoting; hillary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
hillary has her political parties confused. It's the Dims that have made an art of stealing elections.
1 posted on 03/10/2004 11:53:59 PM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Translation: "We haven't figured out how to rig these things yet so it MUST be unfair!!"
2 posted on 03/10/2004 11:56:17 PM PST by Tall_Texan ("We must defeat the evil-doers" - George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Diebold CEO William O'Dell, who has raised money for Republicans, has said he will do everything he can to ensure President Bush is re-elected.

Our very own "Slick Willie". How cute!

3 posted on 03/10/2004 11:59:06 PM PST by Tall_Texan ("We must defeat the evil-doers" - George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
What she means is that it's going to be harder for Dems to do any funny business with this way of voting. How are they going to get all those dead people to figure out these new machines?


4 posted on 03/11/2004 12:00:03 AM PST by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
Alternative translation: "We have figured out how to rig these things, so time to setup the usual smoke screen - accuse you of whatever we are up to."
5 posted on 03/11/2004 12:01:01 AM PST by ThePythonicCow (Meow !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: beaversmom
She wants to bring back the HANGING CHADS!!!
7 posted on 03/11/2004 12:01:32 AM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
If this is true, she will.

Johns Hopkins identified 328 security flaws in Diebolds system 26 are critical.
8 posted on 03/11/2004 12:02:33 AM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
Third translation: "1. Blame Republicans, 2. Repeat"
9 posted on 03/11/2004 12:03:02 AM PST by ThePythonicCow (Meow !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Contrary to all the concern about computerized voting, it will not be difficult to generate a comprehensive audit trail of an entire election using computers. This is something that could never be done with paper ballots. A computerized voting system could easily print out a minute-by-minute vote count throughout the entire election day in one precinct. With this kind of printout, many forms of vote fraud can be caught by comparing the number of votes with the record of voters signing in at the polls. For instance, if a candidate suddenly picks up 500 votes in one minute when only 40 voters signed in during the last 30 minutes, then someone corrupted the vote count in the computer system. If computerized voting systems are developed correctly, they can make vote fraud much more difficult.
10 posted on 03/11/2004 12:13:33 AM PST by Patriot_from_CA (Suddenly the raven on Scalia's shoulder stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven..."NeverGore")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Patriot_from_CA
If computerized voting systems are developed correctly, they can make vote fraud much more difficult.

Which is probably why hillary! is bringing this up. Planting the seeds of doubt now that can be played upon later?

11 posted on 03/11/2004 12:16:25 AM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
Hitlery only gets political advice from the best


12 posted on 03/11/2004 12:17:49 AM PST by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
An accusation is often a subconscious confession....:)
13 posted on 03/11/2004 12:20:40 AM PST by Salamander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Sen. Hillary Clinton said yesterday voters in New York and elsewhere may not be able to trust future election results, charging the company that makes high-tech voting machines may skew results to help Republicans win.

This is a joke thread, right?

Just how in the he!! can "hi-tech" voting machines keep the dead from voting???

14 posted on 03/11/2004 12:20:57 AM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Planting the seeds of doubt now that can be played upon later?

Gee's I guess I am a political cynic, for I have pondered the idea for quite some time.

Perhaps, cynicism isn't the word best suited for my mindset.

15 posted on 03/11/2004 12:25:43 AM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Actually, this is a VERY GOOD idea!

I don't trust the machines. Anyone could rig the setup, and we know 99.9% of the time which party that might be.
16 posted on 03/11/2004 12:32:40 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Patriot_from_CA
With this kind of printout, many forms of vote fraud can be caught by comparing the number of votes with the record of voters signing in at the polls.

However, no amount of printing out and data screening can guarantee that the candidate you voted for is actually the candidate the machine recorded your vote for. A receipt doesn't help because there's no guarantee that the receipt matches what the machine tallied. Ultimately, the only way to assure that the vote the voter cast is what's really tallied is for the machine to print out a ballot, which the voter reviews, then seals in an envelope and deposits in a sealed box. Essentially, that would reduce the multi-thousand dollar machine to being a computerized version of a two dollar "X" stamp.

Of course, there WAS this system where you could see how you voted, confirm it was what you wanted, then deposit the ballot. It was simple, as close to idiot proof as anything operated by humans will ever be, and had a long and honored history of producing consistently repeatable results in elections all over the country for the last fifty years.

Unfortunately, Al Gore needed to invent some flaws in that system in an attempt to steal an election. Now that his supporters have gotten the new system they demanded, they're whining about it.... never happy.... what else is new?

17 posted on 03/11/2004 12:34:09 AM PST by ArmstedFragg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Clinton said that unless electronic voting machines also produce a paper trail, GOP-leaning corporations might program the equipment to help Republicans steal elections.

The God fearing, pure as the wind, poor and destitute, Democrats of course can be left out of this statement.

After all, the likes of oh say, Micheal Moore, have proved themselves to the world that their institutional thinking would never allow such a heinous political endeavor!

18 posted on 03/11/2004 12:35:09 AM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
I think it's a good idea too, it just galls me that hillary!, or any Dim for that matter, would have the ba.... uh, nerve to bring this up.
19 posted on 03/11/2004 12:36:11 AM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This is yet another masterstroke by the Democrats.

The Democrats have every intention of rigging electronic voting machines if they can, wherever they can (duh, it's what Democrats DO), so they send Hillary out there to employ the old reliable "reverse psychology" gambit. "Better watch those Republicans!"

The Republicans should have beaten the Democrats to the punch on this, but they once again fell flat on their collective face. It's getting embarrassing.

Only last week the Democrats pulled off their first great masterstroke of the campaign season when they unleashed a "quick response" team of scumbag "9/11 family members" who had no shame whatsoever about disgracing the memories of their loved ones by faking "outrage" in order to promote a left-wing political agenda on behalf of Kerry. Where were the Republicans when all this was being planned, and how did they get caught flat-footed by such an obvious and predictable ruse??

The Republicans better get their heads out of their rear-ends, and they better do it fast. I want to see some aggressive action. I want to see some masterstrokes from the Republicans for a change. I want to see the GOP get down and dirty. If they want to beat the Democrats, they better be willing to go down, way, way down to the bottom of the foul stinking sewer and fight the Democrats where they live.
20 posted on 03/11/2004 12:36:42 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
I agree with your points.

I don't actually see a problem with using the electronic system to just print out the ballot that then goes into a box and is then counted later.

I do have a problem with giving voters a "receipt" to take out of the polling center with them. Thugs/employers could demand that the voter show them their receipt. "Knock and drag" drivers could demand to see the ballot (in exchange for payment).

What precautions would there be for voters to prevent forged "receipts" in the case of a recall?

Meanwhile, what can we do to get every voter to show picture ID (like is used to buy alcohol, drive a car, or write a check)?

21 posted on 03/11/2004 12:50:31 AM PST by weegee ('...Kerry is like that or so a crack sausage.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: beaversmom
Yup.

From Goebbels speech at the Nuremberg Rally of 1934:

He is blaming others of this blame reversal ...
22 posted on 03/11/2004 12:54:35 AM PST by ThePythonicCow (Meow !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
I have watched several news discussions on FOX and CNN. DemoC-Rats dominate the Talk. NO other person can complete a sentence. These Democ-Rats EVEN DO IT TO O'Reliey So, Republicans sit quietly and lose the debate, instead of interrupting like the DemoC-rats. The DemoC-rats will not let the opposition talk unless they interrupt every few seconds. Study Psych or Social Psych. Note that By interrupting the other person, any person watching or listening gets the impression that the OPPOSITION person doesn't know what they are talking about or communicate very well.
23 posted on 03/11/2004 1:55:46 AM PST by Wisard (How come Texas has more Mexicans than Mexico?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Communists just won't be happy until they completely discredited our system of free elections.

Next thing you know, she'll be inviting the UN as "observers".

24 posted on 03/11/2004 2:31:22 AM PST by Caipirabob (Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The fact that she is saying this is an indication that the Dems are planning on this very thing. This is the begining of the smoke and mirrors.
25 posted on 03/11/2004 2:45:05 AM PST by Clean_Sweep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wisard
There was an attractive Black Republican woman on Fox yesterday morning who had the audacity to not allow the 'rat plantation master to tell her how to think. She correctly pointed out that the 'rats use the Nazi propaganda methods perfected by Goebbels. The 'rat talking head (also black)attempted to scold her for using the dreaded "N" word (Nazi). She quickly pointed out the Move-On ads showing Bush morphing into Hitler. She is very combative;I like her style. On a unrelated note, why are all the good-looking female commentators Republican?

26 posted on 03/11/2004 2:57:21 AM PST by macrahanish #1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Forget the future voting systems. That is just a smokescreen for the RATs to cast aspersions on the current voting system. They've already started in on Florida and now Her Heinous is yakking about New York. Meanwhile out in Kalifornia, there are problems with some new machines, and some moron state senator is pushing for 14 year-olds to vote. When you add it all up, you've got a concerted effort to undermine confidence in voting at large, making it far easier for Boobus America to accept nationwide court challenges a la Florida 2000.
27 posted on 03/11/2004 3:01:58 AM PST by Dahoser (They RATS are waging war on many fronts. That's the big picture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob
hitlery will do that if it, I mean she, gets elected pres...I am getting nauseated thinking about that (gag)

coincheck
28 posted on 03/11/2004 3:03:22 AM PST by coincheck (support our troops, they are the best bar none (sua sponte))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kattracks

BTW I voted with a touch screen last year.

Touch screen voting without paper is idiotic. Printouts are not made because it would cost too much and no county would have bought the touch screens. The way to go has always been optically scanned voter cards. Cheaper and more tamper proof. Ideally, network the scanner to election headquarters with a simple telephone modem so tallies are made in real time. Various states and counties went with these LCD touch screens because they seem more hi tech. As lame as handing out laptops to 5th graders meaning progress.

29 posted on 03/11/2004 3:05:54 AM PST by dennisw (“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks

30 posted on 03/11/2004 3:09:34 AM PST by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Cross-link:

-The Vote Fraud Archives--

31 posted on 03/11/2004 3:33:32 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Patriot_from_CA
Contrary to all the concern about computerized voting, it will not be difficult to generate a comprehensive audit trail of an entire election using computers.

Yes, but this is now. The Diebold machines were used in California recently with results that could be expected in any democrat run election. More votes were recorded than there were registered voters. Without paper there is no audit trail and no backup. We have a ways to go before computerized voting can work. The technical problems are trivial. The procedural problems are vast.

32 posted on 03/11/2004 3:41:03 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
She's just laying the groundwork for challenging the election results in November.
33 posted on 03/11/2004 3:42:16 AM PST by Junior (No animals were harmed in the making of this post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Before Florida there was nothing wrong with manual voting devices. If Bush or Gore won Florida by more than a few thousand votes nothing would have changed.
34 posted on 03/11/2004 3:44:25 AM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clean_Sweep
"The fact that she is saying this is an indication that the Dems are planning on this very thing. This is the begining of the smoke and mirrors."


I tend to agree with you. So knowing the lying liberals need to manufacture votes to win elections, seems appropriate that we not wait until election day to DO something.

We can't say we have not been warned, the hight priestess of evil sounded the warning. Wonder what she plans to do about it?
35 posted on 03/11/2004 3:54:57 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This may explain the "bet the farm" mentality of this election. Could it be that the REAL numbers are soooo bad that they have to sow the seeds of doubt.

I do not for a SECOND believe they do not know who to fix elections.

I do believe poll watchers are critical AND a mens of ANALOG recording of all data transmission from polling places. Thus is someone taps into the line, it will make a copy of the alteration process.
36 posted on 03/11/2004 5:24:47 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
vicious lying bitch knows about vote fraud...
37 posted on 03/11/2004 5:27:33 AM PST by The Wizard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Besides the fact that the Dems have been committing voter fraud in every major city for over a century, we have been using high tech voting machines for years in many parts of the country.
38 posted on 03/11/2004 5:37:41 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This ties in with Kerry's comments about Republicans being lying crooks. It must be the new Demonrat talking points. And it's also giving liberal voters once again, a means to protest the election outcome in November if it isn't to their liking.
39 posted on 03/11/2004 6:33:09 AM PST by mass55th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I would like to know how these machines work - if there is indeed a Florida redux - how are we going to know the actual votes? We all know they will do whatever they need to do to try to steal ANOTHER election.
40 posted on 03/11/2004 6:51:53 AM PST by baseballmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
A receipt doesn't help because there's no guarantee that the receipt matches what the machine tallied.

Actually -- if the receipt has a random but unique ID on it, then simply requiring the precinct to publish the full voting results, by ID, will allow each individual to double-check his/her receipt against the tally roster to ensure that the two match. The tally sheets could be posted at the polling location, online, or in newspapers.

Combine that with the previous comment about catching "spikes" of votes, and it has considerably better validation of results than traditional methods.

41 posted on 03/11/2004 6:58:28 AM PST by kevkrom (Ask your Congresscritter about his or her stance on HR 25 -- the NRST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
Alternative translation: "We have figured out how to rig these things, so time to setup the usual smoke screen - accuse you of whatever we are up to."

There it is! Link that statement to Kerry's 'off mic' but 'on mic' comment and the simple fact that the queen of corrupt politics herself sees fit to attack the once revered, impeccably disciplined, faithfully subservient voter counters.

SOP for the rats is swiftly unraveling. As in AHIBL(All H--- Is Breaking loose) on the plantation.

42 posted on 03/11/2004 7:13:26 AM PST by JoeSixPack1 (POW/MIA, Bring 'em home, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: macrahanish #1
Good post! I missed that. If she was really any good, they'll doubtless have her on again.

On a unrelated note, why are all the good-looking female commentators Republican?

Well, there's a reason for that. Girls with good looks and lots of smarts just naturally gravitate towards the Republican side because, let's face it, if they have the smarts, there's really no place else they can go!

On the other hand, this leaves our friends on the left with the pickings (rather slim, admittedly) from their natural constituencies. Invariably, they get them from the local Board of Public Works!

CA....

43 posted on 03/11/2004 11:40:24 AM PST by Chances Are (Whew! It seems I've once again found that silly grin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Looks like Hillry will have to have get this story replayed if she sought to get media attention today, given that we have terrorists at work in Spain, and one of the liberals own arrested for spying.

44 posted on 03/11/2004 11:42:29 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Clinton said that unless electronic voting machines also produce a paper trail, GOP-leaning corporations might program the equipment to help Republicans steal elections.

And monkeys might fly out of Hillary's butt - we need to take action now!

45 posted on 03/11/2004 11:44:21 AM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
"weegee"'s post 21 addresses the problem inherent in having identifiable information available. You can end up with a situation where an employer demands an employee's receipt number. So, there's a potential loss of secrecy in the ballot process inherent in the verification process you suggest.

I do agree, though, that it would work.

The general concept of a receipt has another problem which is related to its mischief-making potential. If you recall the way the first moments of the Florida recount unwound, the demo phone-banks made numerous calls to people suggesting that their vote was being miscounted, and, by golly, produced a significant number of seniors who decided that had, in fact, happened.

Issuing receipts presents a candidate who wishes to put the results in doubt with the opportunity to send a few "ringers" to the polls instructed to vote for his opponent. He then has them display the receipts showing a vote tallied for the opponent and claim that they had actually voted for him, and therefore the machines weren't counting votes properly.

Given sufficient publicity, this claim would result in a number of other people checking their receipts and would turn up a number of people who, through human error, hadn't voted for the candidate they wanted to. Of course, knowing human nature, none of them would accept that the error was theres, so they'd present themselves as additional "victims" of the "machine problems".

Essentially, you create a situation where every election can become a "Florida-type" contest.
46 posted on 03/11/2004 12:05:44 PM PST by ArmstedFragg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
Before Florida there was nothing wrong with manual voting devices.

Well, actually, there was a Los Angeles City Council a few years prior to 2000 that had the same "problems". The guy who lead the challenge in that race was later quoted as saying, "you let me get my hands on the cards and I can give you a hundred votes".

Interestingly enough, that guy was working as a consultant for the Gore campaign in Florida in 2000.

47 posted on 03/11/2004 12:14:38 PM PST by ArmstedFragg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
OH, and....

The work around for the unique ID number would be to create an ID number for each possible combination of choices. The machine would issue you a number for the combination that matched what you voted for, but would actually record a modified version of your vote under another ID number.

Unless you compared ID numbers with someone else who voted exactly the same way you did, you'd never catch on. And even then, if it was only done enough to swing the majority and not on every vote, you'd have to get lucky.



48 posted on 03/11/2004 12:21:39 PM PST by ArmstedFragg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"If it doesn't have chads, we don't want it. What are we supposed to recount for weeks on end?"
49 posted on 03/11/2004 12:24:09 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
Issuing receipts presents a candidate who wishes to put the results in doubt with the opportunity to send a few "ringers" to the polls instructed to vote for his opponent. He then has them display the receipts showing a vote tallied for the opponent and claim that they had actually voted for him, and therefore the machines weren't counting votes properly.

I see where you're coming from, but I'd have to disagree. The voter would be responsible for making sure the receipt correctly recorded their vote before they left the polling place. It could only challenge the tally if it differed from the "official" vote list. The "I meant to vote for Gore but it said I voted for Buchanan" argument doesn't work if their receipt says they voted for Buchanan.

Buying votes or voter intimidation is a legitimate concern. On the former, my libertarian streak says that an individual has every right to sell their vote -- it is their franchise to do with as they will, and don't many people already sell their votes for the promise of a particular program to benefit themselves? My conservative side is revolted at the thought that people would actually do it.

On the coercion issue... the only remedy would be legal enforcement -- attempting to interfere in such a manner with a federal election is a civil rights violation and possibly criminal in other ways as well.

50 posted on 03/11/2004 12:53:07 PM PST by kevkrom (Ask your Congresscritter about his or her stance on HR 25 -- the NRST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson